lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Mar]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 2/4] Memory controller soft limit interface (v3)
On Mon, 2 Mar 2009 10:16:31 +0530
Balbir Singh <balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:

> * KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> [2009-03-02 11:03:23]:
>
> > On Sun, 01 Mar 2009 12:00:11 +0530
> > Balbir Singh <balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > From: Balbir Singh <balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> > >
> > > Changelog v2...v1
> > > 1. Add support for res_counter_check_soft_limit_locked. This is used
> > > by the hierarchy code.
> > >
> > > Add an interface to allow get/set of soft limits. Soft limits for memory plus
> > > swap controller (memsw) is currently not supported. Resource counters have
> > > been enhanced to support soft limits and new type RES_SOFT_LIMIT has been
> > > added. Unlike hard limits, soft limits can be directly set and do not
> > > need any reclaim or checks before setting them to a newer value.
> > >
> > > Kamezawa-San raised a question as to whether soft limit should belong
> > > to res_counter. Since all resources understand the basic concepts of
> > > hard and soft limits, it is justified to add soft limits here. Soft limits
> > > are a generic resource usage feature, even file system quotas support
> > > soft limits.
> > >
> > I don't convice adding more logics to res_counter is a good to do, yet.
> >
>
> Even though it is extensible and you pay the cost only when soft
> limits is turned on? Can you show me why you are not convinced?
>
Inserting more codes (like "if") to res_counter itself is not welcome..
I think res_counter is too complex as counter already.

I'm now searching a way to reduce res_counter->lock ping-pong but have no
good idea.

Thanks,
-Kame







\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-03-02 06:39    [W:1.678 / U:0.172 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site